Discussion Title: Should there be one singular global government/entity

1. Should there be one singular global government/entity
1.1. Con: Who would be the lead/head of the world government, countries can't agree with each other at the best of times
1.1.1. Pro: Those who oppose the moral views of this government would be very unhappy.
1.2. Con: Pooling resources could damage economic growth for more developed countries
1.2.1. Pro: Resources would be distributed to underdeveloped countries, essentially relocating funds away from more developed countries.
1.2.2. Con: The priority is the survival of humanity, not economic growth.
1.2.2.1. Con: Economic growth is [necessary](https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffreydorfman/2017/12/22/why-growth-matters/#3cc027137141) for continued survival.
1.3. Con: This would only increase war as splinter groups from countries rebel
1.3.1. Pro: Following the end of colonialism, there has been a recent trend of countries splitting off in the current socio-political landscape. Making one singular globular government runs contrary to this trend and is likely to exacerbate the tensions underlying these splits and thus lead to war.
1.3.1.1. Pro: The [independence movements in the Pacific territories](https://www.britannica.com/place/Pacific-Islands/Independence-movements) have resulted in the creation of independent countries that are unlikely to give up on their newfound freedom.
1.3.1.1.1. Pro: Following World War II, [Palau](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-15446659) became a United Nations Trust Territory of the Pacific, but only gained independence in 1994.
1.3.2. Pro: There will likely be groups that do not agree with the universal laws of one government.
1.3.2.1. Con: If the government is designed justly, then such groups would be inherently unjust and therefore illegitimate.
1.3.3. Con: Rebellion already happens among multiple governments. Thus, it's likely it would not increase, but simply continue.
1.3.4. Con: Their rebellions would be easily crushed by a world army.
1.3.4.1. Con: This would depend entirely on the size and strength of the rebellion. It is plausible that a sizable rebellion can be established to challenge a world army.
1.4. Con: Loss of national identities of the countries absorbed into this world government. A higher degree of corruption within this new union.
1.4.1. Con: Loss of national identities could reduce conflict by removing the "them and us" mentality.
1.4.2. Con: All governments are corrupt. There is no reason to believe a single world government would be any more or less corrupt than what we have now.
1.5. Con: One person will have way too much power and even if there is more than one person leading they will all be on the general same side. And no one person should rule that many people and have that much power.
1.6. Pro: Poverty could be effectively tackled
1.6.1. Con: There is poverty already existing within singular governments, without agreed upon resolutions.
1.6.2. Pro: Governments can bring their resources together under one single plan to resolve poverty.
1.6.2.1. Pro: [The Venus Project](https://www.thevenusproject.com/) is one such proposed plan that has the potential to alleviate poverty under one system.
1.7. Pro: Potential for free trade so wider business influence
1.7.1. Pro: Within one single governmental system, importing goods from country to country will be easier without tariffs.
1.7.1.1. Pro: [Tariffs](https://www.investopedia.com/terms/i/import-duty.asp), or import duties, can be used to raise money for local governments. Under one single government, this will become obsolete.
1.7.2. Pro: A singular government would allow for easier combining of technology.
1.8. Pro: Have a singular government would unite us.
1.9. Pro: It would be a great idea if we can agree the make up of the proposed universal government, the leader and the financiers.
1.10. Pro: Free movement of people between countries
1.10.1. Pro: This would enable more opportunities for jobs
1.10.1.1. Pro: People migrating from one country to the next would not need to wait on a work visa to seek employment.
1.10.2. Con: The world could end up having certain countries that are overpopulated
1.10.2.1. Pro: It is likely that some countries would be of more interest to citizens than others due to better living conditions.
1.10.2.2. Pro: This would result in the depletion of resources in one area.
1.10.2.3. Con: Over time, this would correct itself, as those in overpopulated countries would move in order to improve their quality of life.
1.11. Pro: As nations divide and sub-divide throughout the world, as they have done since the dawn of mankind, it is clear that the human psyche' is wholly incompatible with such a notion.
1.12. Pro: A single government would have the resources to combat climate change
1.12.1. Pro: Currently, the world is [divided](https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2015/11/05/global-concern-about-climate-change-broad-support-for-limiting-emissions/) in concern about climate change. Without on singular government, resources are divided as well.
1.12.1.1. Pro: The United States recently left the [Paris Agreement](https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/05/19/leaving-the-paris-agreement-is-a-bad-deal-for-the-united-states/).
1.12.2. Con: A singular government may err on the side of less concern over climate change, thus diminishing any efforts at all.
1.12.2.1. Pro: Currently, only [14.2%](https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-08-20/chinese-citizens-need-to-worry-more-about-climate-change) of Chinese in China express concern. Based on this statistic, a single government similar to China's may not take it as a serious threat.
1.12.3. Pro: Currently, [developing countries](https://www.international.gc.ca/world-monde/issues_development-enjeux_developpement/environmental_protection-protection_environnement/climate-climatiques.aspx?lang=eng) are the most impacted by climate change and the most limited in how they can respond. Under one government, they will be more properly equipped.
1.13. Pro: A single government would end war
1.13.1. Pro: Ownership of resources will cease to be fought over.
1.13.1.1. Con: A singular government does not immediately result in harmony and agreement with one another.
1.13.2. Con: Religious wars can happen within the same governmental system.
1.13.3. Con: Corruption happens within singular governments. War can be started in an attempt to end it.
1.13.3.1. Pro: It is plausible that some nations will resist being absorbed into a single government.This can spark a war.
1.13.4. Con: -> See 1.13.1.1.
1.13.5. Pro: A singular government would eliminate disputes over territories.
1.13.5.1. Con: Many disputes over territories don't happen between governments, but between different ethnicities or groups that may be present.
1.13.5.1.1. Pro: The [Turkish-Kurdish conflict](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurdish%E2%80%93Turkish_conflict_\(1978%E2%80%93present\)) is a conflict between insurgent groups and the Turkish government.
1.13.5.1.2. Pro: The [Khalistan movement](https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Khalistan_movement) is a territorial conflict between the Sikh community and the Indian government.
1.13.5.1.3. Pro: The [conflict in Nagaland](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_conflict_in_Nagaland) is a territorial dispute between the government of India and ethnic Nagas.
1.14. Pro: A singular government would create a standardized approach to environmental issues.
1.14.1. Con: If the government were led by a climate change denier, there would be no effective measure to counter their policies.
1.15. Con: A singular government can negatively impact diversity.
1.15.1. Pro: A singular government may impose one particular culture over others, indirectly diminishing these cultures.
1.15.1.1. Con: This has already been in effect with [colonization](https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/chris-kortright-colonization-and-identity).
1.15.2. Con: A singular government will likely be able to protect cultures and languages as it homogenizes, similar to how multicultural countries today operate.
1.15.2.1. Pro: Over [250](https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2016/as-sa/98-200-x/2016016/98-200-x2016016-eng.cfm) ethnic origins or ancestries were reported by the Canadian population.
1.15.2.2. Con: Muticultural countries today have not done a good job of protecting cultures. There is no reason to believe a single government will be able to do any better.
1.15.2.2.1. Pro: Native American culture [still struggles](https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/native-american-oil-land-barack-obama-protesters-a7235656.html) to assert itself in the United States.
1.15.3. Con: Given the recent pressure to protect cultures, a singular government will likely prioritize the protection and growth of diversity.
1.15.3.1. Pro: In 2005, the [Convention for the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions](https://en.unesco.org/creativity/convention), which was a milestone in international cultural policy, was adopted.
1.15.3.1.1. Pro: The convention provides a new framework for informed, transparent and participatory systems of governance for culture. This framework could easily guide the singular government.
1.15.3.2. Pro: Businesses and organizations have responded to this trend by instituting [diversity trainings](https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/eb008414/full/html).
1.15.3.3. Pro: This trend is helping many tribes in the United States to [revive](https://indianyouth.org/american-indian-life/traditions-culture) their traditions and cultures.
1.15.4. Pro: One government can impose the homogenization of languages, effectively killing off minority languages.
1.15.4.1. Con: Homogenization of language would be good for humanity as it would reduce misunderstandings and allow for easier communication between disparate groups.
1.16. Pro: End corruption for some countries
1.16.1. Con: A global governance system would still have a need for local governments, which may be just as corruptible.
1.16.2. Pro: Governments would not be able to set up barriers to communication and censorship policies, making it much harder to be corrupt and authoritative.
1.16.2.1. Pro: [Chinese authoritarianism](https://asia.nikkei.com/Opinion/China-style-authoritarian-rule-advances-even-as-democracy-fights-back) is made possible by virtue of its [extensive censorship](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_China). A lack of free press and restrictions on the internet allow the government to operate without any real oversight or accountability.
1.16.2.2. Pro: Censorship is [strongly associated](https://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy/article/2171196/chinese-style-digital-authoritarianism-rising-around-world) with increasing authoritarianism.
1.16.2.3. Pro: North Korea's [dictatorial regime](https://www.bbc.co.uk/newsround/20692214) is able to get away with much of its action owing to its [extensive censorship](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_North_Korea) policies.
1.16.3. Con: Since a global government would hold even more power than individual ones, there is even higher potential for corruption.
1.16.3.1. Pro: There would be no other examples of properly run governments to challenge the corruptness of one.
1.16.3.1.1. Pro: Switzerland and New Zealand have the [best](https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/the-best-governments-in-the-world.html) run governments in the world currently. Without these benchmark examples, other governments have no higher standards to adhere to.
1.16.4. Pro: Countries like [Somalia](https://www.ganintegrity.com/portal/country-profiles/somalia/) that rank high on the Corruption Perceptions Index would likely improve since their government would no longer be able to trade illegal activities for bribes.
1.16.5. Pro: North Korea would not be under communist rule, giving its citizens a chance at a better life.
1.16.5.1. Pro: Currently, [North Koreans](https://nypost.com/2019/05/28/north-koreans-are-paying-bribes-to-survive-corrupt-regime-un-report/) are reduced to bribes in order to survive the corruption that ensues.